Chapter 7

Learning about Circuitry with E-textiles in after-school settings

Kylie Peppler & Diane Glosson

The relationship between various tools and the structuring of subject matter is central to many
examinations of disciplinary learning. Papert (1980, p. 23), for one, called attention to the impact
of specific tools (“objects to think with”) on the ways that we learn and perceive subject matter.
Of potential interest to anyone working with e-textiles in educational settings is the impact that
working with these tools has on our ontological understanding of robotics, computing and
engineering, particularly in the ways that it contrasts with learning outcomes that derive from the
use of more traditional tools (e.g., batteries, insulated wire, nails, thumbtacks, paper clips, bulbs,
and so on). The historical prevalence of youths’ conceptual misunderstandings of simple
circuitry from learning with these traditional materials (Evans, 1978; Tiberghien & Delacote,
1976) provides additional justification for this exploration. For instance, traditional circuitry
toolkits possess numerous design elements that make invisible what makes them work (e.g., the
connecting wires in an incandescent bulb disappear behind an electrical contact foot and metallic
screw cap; insulated wires prevent crossed lines from shorting out). By contrast, e-textile toolkits
reveal underlying electrical structures and processes in tangible and observable ways, allowing
designers to investigate aspects of circuits and computational technologies that are otherwise
invisible to the user (Buechley, 2010; Kafai & Peppler, in press). Furthermore, dramatically
changing the nature of the tools used to explore circuitry concepts (e.g., fabrics, threads, and
other soft materials) inspires youth to ask questions they otherwise wouldn’t have. Is cotton
conductive? What makes energy pass through this material but not that one? Re-evaluating
garments and textiles beyond their immediately practical or aesthetic functions encourages youth
to think more deeply about the circuitry concepts at play and the qualities of the physical
materials, themselves.
Seeking to explore whether the visibility inherent to these materials could prove significant
for youths’ conceptual understanding of circuitry, we invited youth at a local Boys and Girls
Club to design a host of e-textile projects and reflect upon their production practices in a 20-hour
workshop. All the while, we observed and analyzed youths’ projects and interactions in the
process of creation for evidence of improved understanding of core circuitry concepts. Results
indicate that youth participants significantly gained in their understanding of multiple core
circuitry concepts as well as their ability to diagram and create working circuits in parallel and
series formations (Peppler & Glosson, 2012). This work seeks to provide a foundation for
integrating e-textile materials into standards-based practices in formal education systems and to
illustrate how this might be taught and assessed in the classroom.

Workshop Description

Our e-textile workshop was designed as part of the local Boys and Girls Club summer program.
Seventeen youth, ages 7-12 years, participated in the entire twenty-hour, ten-session e-textile
curriculum lasting for two hours per day over a two-week period. The e-textile workshop
targeted five central concepts important to the study of circuitry but are more commonly taught
using traditional materials: current flow (Osborne, 1981; Osborne, 1983; Shipstone, 1984),
battery polarity (Osborne, 1983; Osborne et al., 1991; Shepardson & Moje, 1994; Asoko, 1996),
circuit connectivity (Osborne, 1983; Asoko, 1996), and the diagramming of circuits in series
(Osborne, 1983; Osborne et al., 1991) and parallel (Shepardson & Moje, 1994) formations
which are further defined below:

1. Current flow is defined as the circular path electrons take around a circuit (Osborne,
1981). For e-textile projects, we assessed participants’ ability to stitch loops with no
redundant lines or instances of shorts (i.e., loose threads touch the opposite terminal line).
2. Battery polarity involves connecting battery terminals to the corresponding output
terminals in a circuit (i.e., + to + and - to -). In the context of e-textiles, we assessed
whether youth could orient the positive and negative terminals of circuit components
correctly in relationship to the power source.
3. Circuit connectivity pertains to the joining of the battery, bulb and wires to form a
working circuit (Osborne, 1983; Osborne, et al., 1991; Shepardson & Moje, 1994). In
absence of these materials, we adapted the term in our assessment of youths’ e-textiles
projects to define connectivity as the craft of the circuit. That is, the lines (i.e., conductive
thread) had to securely connect one component to another with attention being paid to the
particular points of conductivity (e.g., looping the conductive thread through the terminal
hole for a strong connection).
4. A series circuit is one where electrical current flows sequentially through every
component in the circuit. In a series circuit, any electron progresses through all
components to form a single path, meaning that energy diminishes as it progresses
through each component in the circuit (such as a string of light-emitting diodes [LEDs]).
5. In a parallel circuit, the electrical current divides into two or more paths before
recombining to complete the circuit. Working with e-textiles, electrons in a parallel
circuit go through two (or more) LEDs at the same time, meaning that the electron’s
energy given to each LED is identical.

These circuitry concepts were explored in a series of three projects selected by the youth
participants over the course of the 10 sessions, of which two are presented here: an introductory
simple circuit quilt square and a programmable wristband with persistence-of-vision (POV)
tracking. Taking place in an informal environment, participants’ creative production with these
tools was largely defined by free exploration and experimentation; direct instruction was limited
to three brief presentations, and youth often turned to peer or mentor support for advice and
inspiration on their individual projects.
Below, we address the science concepts manifested in two of the youths’ e-textile projects—
the quilt square and the POV bracelet—as well as what the youths’ projects revealed about their
understandings of current flow, circuit connectivity, battery polarity, and series vs. parallel
circuits. Throughout, we augment these findings with vignettes of how these understandings
were cultivated through moment-to-moment interactions with the tools, peers and workshop
mentors.

g about sim
Learning mple circuits: Simple Ciircuit Quilt Square

The quiltt square projject provided d an introducction to desiigning simplle circuit forrms, as well as an
opportunnity for youth h to play wiith the new materials—t
m threading a sself-threadinng needle, seewing
with condductive threaad, practicinng making seecure knots— —and reflectt on the basicc requiremennts of
creating a complete simple
s circuiit with an illuminated LE ED.
Each square conssisted of a 12 1 x 12 inch h swatch of fabric upon which eachh youth stitchhed a
closed circuit using one
o LED, a battery,
b a sw
witch (buttonn or slide), anand conductivve thread. B Before
youth began their pro ojects, we assked them to o draw circuuit diagrams in order for us to assesss their
preexistin
ng understan nding of currrent flow, connections
c aand polarityy. In this firsst drawing, yyouth
attemptedd to diagram m a simple working ciircuit using pencil and custom LilyPad compoonent
stickers [Editors’
[ notte: “Lilypad”” here referss to the Lilyppad Arduinoo kit, “the fiirst constru uction
kit to maake e‐textilee constructio on accessiblee to non‐enggineers” (Bu uechley, et aal., 2013, p. 12)] .
Once theeir diagrams were comp plete, youth then adapteed their draw wing to theirr quilting sqquare.
Howeverr, once engaged with thee physical materials,
m inittial misundeerstandings oof circuitry iin the
abstract came
c to the fore. The ev vidence that these misunnderstandinggs had been aamended thrrough
the experrience of wo orking with the
t e-textile materials waas abundantlly clear wheen comparedd with
the hand--drawn circu uit diagramss youth madee later in thee workshop. Through prrojects like tthese,
youth revvealed signifficant gains in their abiliity to not onnly diagram a working ccircuit, but allso in
their dem
monstrated un nderstanding gs of currentt flow, conneectivity and polarity (Peeppler & Gloosson,
2012). Fiigure 7.1 provides an illustrative ex xample of hoow one youuth’s circuitrry understandings
developeed over the course of worrking with th he e-textile m
materials.

Start off Workshop End of Woorkshop

Initially,, Courtney laacked the By the end, Courtney showed aan

understaanding of:
 Currrent flow: theere is no
circuular path fromm the battery
y circcular path in the diagram
to eaach componeent.
 Polarrity: the LED D’s negativee
termminal is incorrrectly
oriennted toward the
t battery’ss
posittive one.
 Conn nections: thee lines drawnn
don’t connect to any of the
improvved understannding of:
 Currrent flow: thhere’s a cleaar
m
connnecting all oof the
commponents in tthe circuit.
 Polaarity: the LE ED is positiooned
corrrectly towardd the batteryy
termminals (- to --)
 Connnections: thhere is a minndful
connsideration thhat the drawnn
 small terminal holes in any of lines extend over the edge of
the component. the sticker, directly into the
terminal ports.

Figure 7.1: Courtney’s circuit drawings at the start and end of the workshop.

As illustrated here, 10-year-old Courtney in her first drawing appeared to understand the
need for three parts to a circuit—switch, battery holder and LED—in the (unprompted) labeling
of the parts and that a connection needed to be made from the battery holder to the LED.
However, she lacked the understanding of current flow (circuit path), polarity and the importance
of solid connections of conductive thread to the conductive holes. This would have been
immediately evident when she first attempted to realize this drawing using the physical
materials. By contrast, Courtney in her later diagram showed an understanding of a working
circuit including the current flow, connections and polarity.
To see this understanding developing in the moment-to-moment interactions over the course
of the workshop, we recorded and analyzed conversations taking place between the youth, their
peers and the research team that touched upon the key circuitry concepts at play in these projects.
The following excerpt is from a conversation between a researcher and an 8-year-old boy
working on his quilt square about the importance of tracking polarity in the context of e-textiles:

Researcher: So you want to do the same thing to the LED that you did…
Ryan: No, I mean…where is this one (pointing to the switch part sticker)?
Researcher: I’ll get that one for you in a second (gestures towards parts table) but first
go through the LED.
Ryan: (positions LED to sew)
Researcher: You are about to make a fatal mistake. (Points towards Ryan) What is it?
Ryan: The plus is going to the minus.
Researcher: Yes! So you want to switch this (LED) around (gestures in a circle). Now
plus is going to plus.

In this early example with sewing the quilt squares, the youth had already learned that the
plus terminal of the battery needed to be connected to the plus terminal in the LED with
conductive thread or an electrical short would occur. So when the researcher warned Ryan of a
“fatal mistake” as he was about to sew the negative terminal connecting it to the positive battery
terminal, polarity was one of the first things Ryan checked for. His response could have been due
to a phrase that was used extensively by the staff and the youth: “plus to plus and minus to
minus” (i.e., the positive terminal in the battery should connect to the positive terminal in the
LED, just as the negative terminal in the battery should connect to the negative terminal of the
LED). We believe this mantra may have contributed to the significant gains in the youths’
understanding of polarity as reflected in the pre- and post-test diagram assessments.
 After the workshop, the completed “e-Quilt”, comprising 16 working circuits designed and
created by participating youth, was highlighted and displayed at the Boys and Girls Club annual
art exhibition at the local City Hall, which was attended by the Mayor, community members,
Boys and Girls Club staff, the youth artists and their family and friends. At the exhibition,
workshop participants anxiously searched for their circuits to light, shared stories with their
parents about the making of their quilt square and were excited to locate their friends’ circuits, as
well. The e-Quilt project provided not only a valuable showcase for the Boys and Girls Club to
highlight what learning opportunities the Club can offer youth in the community, but the
exhibition provided youth with an occasion to introduce their artistic and scientific skills to their
broader community.

Learning about series and parallel circuits: Persistence of Vision (POV) Wristband

The LilyPad POV wristband is a wearable version of a persistence of vision (POV) display;
POV is the illusion that an image continues to persist even though part of the image has changed.
The LilyPad POV wristband or bracelet can be thought of as a digital version of the old-
fashioned zoetrope used for simple animation. The zoetrope is a cylinder with static images
pasted on the inside. Each image is a slight modification of the previous image. By cutting slits
in the cylinder and spinning it, the viewer effectively sees motion. The POV bracelet creates
words by rapidly alternating patterns of LEDs stitched in a row. When youth sweep their arms
horizontally, the flashing LEDs appear to spell a visible word in the air.
Workshop youth stitched LEDs into their bracelets in a parallel circuit configuration to
enable each LED to be lit separately through LilyPad Arduino programming. In order for each
LED to be programmed separately, the positive LED terminal holes were connected to individual
LilyPad petals (i.e., terminal holes) and the negative LED terminals were stitched as one line into
the negative petal of the LilyPad Arduino (which they also stitched into their bracelets) (see
Figure 7.2). Youth worked with a computer programmer to convert text into Arduino code that
could be uploaded to the LilyPad board. Constraints of time and a primary emphasis on the
basics of circuitry in this workshop prohibited us from dedicating more time to youths’ learning
of programming concepts. However, we hope that some initial transparency into the process of
computer programming will provide youth with a foundation for future explorations with
creative computation, which we have explored more fully in our later workshops (for more, see
Buechley et al., 2013).
 Figure 7.2: Diagram of the POV W
Wristband Design

Durinng the electrricity lesson,, parallel cirrcuits were eexplained inn terms of noot only the LLEDs
being in parallel form m (placed neext to one another) but also how thhis placemennt allowed foor the
LEDs to produce a brighter light. It was explained
e ass “in a paralllel circuit, an electron goes
through EITHER
E onee LED or thee other” whiile the series circuit electtrons had to progress thrrough
both LED Ds, losing energy alon ng the way and thus pproducing a dimmer ligght as the sseries
progresseed. Similar to the circuit diagrams that youth drew beforee and after ttheir quilt sqquare
projects, we asked youth
y to draw w a parallell circuit diaggram beforee and after tthe POV braacelet
activity. The following (Figure 7.3) is an illustrative eexample of Jovita’s unnderstandingg of a
parallel circuit
c as draawn in her ciircuit diagramms at the staart and end oof the workshhop.

Start
S of Worrkshop End of Woorkshop

Jovita’s drawing sho ows an Jovita’ss diagram shhows an

understaanding of polarity and
current flow
f (circuitt path for a
series ciircuit) howev ver, lacks
understaanding of thee importancee
understtanding of poolarity,
connecctions, and cuurrent flow aas
well as correctly pllaces the LEDs
in paralllel.
 of connections of conductive
thread and incorrectly places the
LEDs in series as opposed to the
requested parallel circuit form.

Figure 7.3: Jovita’s circuit diagrams, drawn at the start and end of the workshop.

In the pre-test, 10-year-old Jovita appears to understand polarity and current flow for a series
circuit, yet lacks the ability to place the LEDs in a parallel configuration in her diagram (e.g., all
the LEDs are, instead, aligned in a series). The post-test, by contrast, correctly places the LEDs
in parallel with one another. However, the placement of the switch (opposite to both of the
battery holder’s terminals) allows the LEDs to stay lit continuously until the switch is pushed.
This is in effect the opposite of the solution to the prompt where the push button switch would
turn on the circuit. While not incorrect, per se, it is a rather peculiar design.
In the following, two researchers engage a small group about 10-year-old Dalmar’s POV
wristband, calling specific attention to the workings of parallel versus series circuits:

Researcher 1: The one on the left is called series, why do you think it’s called “series”?
Dalmar: Because they [the LEDs] are by each other.
Researcher 1: And why do you think the other one is called “parallel”?
Dalmar: Because they are parallel to each other.
Researcher 2: Yes, exactly. So it’s easy to tell the difference, right? Series and parallel.
OK, so this is how all electronics works... when you put an electron in the
battery, it wants to go to the other side of the battery, right?
Dylan (age 8): Yeah.
Researcher 2: It’s attracted to the other side. So it will go through these LEDs to get to
the other side (points to series circuit diagram on the laptop screen). Now
with a series circuit the electron loses some energy in going from this side
of the battery to the other side of the battery. And in a series circuit it loses
half of its energy on one LED and half of it on the other one…But in a
parallel circuit (points to the parallel circuit diagram on the laptop screen)
the electron either goes through one LED or it goes through the other
LED. So the electron gives all of its energy to one LED or the other LED.
So how do you think this is going to affect the brightness of the LED?
You guys found this out yesterday, you did this parallel versus series.
Shawnte (age 9): Hook it up to some wires.
Researcher 2: Which one was brighter? Parallel or series?
Many Youth: Parallel.
Researcher 2: Right, right. Because of this (points to the parallel diagram). The electron
goes across the LED and it gives all of its energy to the LED, while in the
series it divides energy between the two LEDs. That’s why it’s dimmer in
series. So which one do you guys want to use?
Many Youth: Parallel.
This exchange between the youth and the researchers took place the day after the youth had
played in small groups while building series and parallel circuits. During that playtime, the youth
were left to explore the connections while using multiple LEDs in making both series and
parallel forms. The exchange captured above calls attention to two things: (1) the youth could
apply the definitions of series and parallel circuits correctly, and (2) the youth had learned the
implications of these designs for the circuits (i.e., that parallel circuits produced brighter LEDs
while series circuits produced dimmer ones with the battery power available).

Moving Beyond the Club

Beyond learning about circuitry, the real promise of e-textile artifacts is their capacity to follow
youth into their peer and family settings, potentially transforming their identities in these social
circles and sparking relevant conversations. Demonstrating the power that physical artifacts can
have to cultivate these conversations, we present a sample exchange between two workshop
participants, 8-year-old Ryan, 10-year-old Noah, and Ryan’s mother at the end of the workshop:

Mother: What is “L.D.”?

Ryan: L.E.D.—it’s a special type of light. And, guess what? In Chicago there is a
museum with 4,000 LED lights on one dress.
Mother: What is the idea behind this? (gesturing towards the square)…that this works,
how?
Ryan: It’s the plus…I mean. That here’s the plus (points) it goes to plus (points) and
through the minus. (To Noah) How does that work (pointing to switch)?
Noah: It doesn’t matter which way that goes.
Ryan: Oh, it doesn’t?
Noah: No.
Ryan: Then it goes through that (points to switch) and then minus goes to minus.
Mother: So, this is minus?
Ryan: And it doesn’t really matter what side this is on (points to switch).
Mother: How does this [project] work? (Passes Noah the 3V battery).
Noah : Yeah (takes the battery).
Ryan: You have to put this [battery] on the conductive tape (points).
Noah: Yeah.
Mother: Where is the tape? Is it conductive tape? (Looking closer at the project).
Ryan: Yeah, that means it has electricity through it and we have electricity through us.
Mother: We have electricity…through us?
Ryan: Electricity is basically electrons and protons.
Mother: Ohhh.
Noah: Actually we have a small amount of [it]…Your brain takes 100 watts to work.
Mother: Ohhh.

The conversation highlights the opportunities for Ryan and Noah to display what they learned,
facilitated and illustrated by the presence of tangible, mobile artifacts. As shown here, several of
these circuitry concepts were new to the’s mother (at least in this physical incarnation), and the
youths’ ability to take these projects home with them increased the likelihood that these STEM-
related [i.e., Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics] conversations could continue
with other family members and peers, and in the other spaces in their lives.
As it turns out, new conversations were sparked back at home through the youths’
experiences with e-textiles, though they weren’t limited to science content. Another youth’s
mother reported back the following day that her 7-year-old son had taken notice “as if for the
first time” the cross-stitching work she had on display at home, having a newfound respect for
her crafting techniques. She reported that Caleb had exclaimed, “Ooh, Mom, your stitching is so
good here! It’s nice and even.” Caleb’s mother later explained to us that, having all boys, she
never anticipated that she could have these types of conversations with her kids. Conversations
such as these underscore the ability for artifacts that sit at the intersection of high and low tech to
spur meaningful conversations amongst family members.

Discussion

From the marked shifts in the workshop participants’ circuit diagrams, as well as their ability to
create a variety of functioning circuits using the e-textile toolkits, we gather that the youth
learned at least five traditional circuitry concepts—current flow, battery polarity, circuit
connectivity, and diagramming circuits in a series—within the context of e-textiles throughout
the workshop. The diagramming-plus-“hands-on” components of each workshop activity mirror
several of the pedagogical methods that employ more traditional toolkits, and some of the
intermediate results—the youths’ exuberance at having the bulb in their circuit illuminate, or the
need for youth to reassess their diagram if their physical circuit failed to work, for example—
were shared across both approaches. However, the learning outcomes of the e-textile workshop,
where participants significantly gained in their understanding of all five targeted circuitry
concepts (Peppler & Glosson, 2012), stand in contrast to the difficult learning curve and frequent
lingering misconceptions promoted by the instruction of circuitry through more traditional kits as
described in numerous studies (Osborne, 1983; Shipstone, 1984; Osborne et al., 1991;
Shepardson & Moje, 1994; Asoko, 1996). We believe that the e-textile materials, themselves,
may be largely responsible for this difference in outcomes.
What makes these materials so different with regard to youths’ learning trajectories? Until
further research is conducted, we can only speculate, though we have a number of hypotheses
based on our observations:

1. E-textile tools are “unforgiving.” Coated wires, magnets and snaps to easily affix lines
and components together are design elements of traditional toolkits intended to prevent
mistakes, and consequently have some inevitable trade-offs for how electricity operates.
The materials explored here, by comparison, did not put in place such safeguards, so
youth were put in positions to make mistakes through which they could learn about
polarity, shorted circuits and other concepts in the process of troubleshooting. By
enabling such opportunities to happen, these tools may afford greater visibility into what
makes one circuit work and not another.
2. E-textile projects provide opportunities for embodied learning of circuitry. Working with
 e-textiles or traditional circuitry toolkits provided tangible, hands-on experiences with
building a circuit in both cases. However, youth must invest substantially more time in an
e-textile project to create a functioning circuit (whereas this could be done in about two
minutes using a kit consisting of magnets and snaps seen in many youth science exhibits).
From our observations, we found that deeper, continuous engagement with the e-textiles
materials over a longer period of time led youth into deeper and more sustained reflection
than what could have been achieved in only a few minutes. In this regard, the speed in
which one arrives at an answer may not necessarily be the one that produces the richest
learning outcomes.
3. E-textile projects encourage youth to see familiar phenomena in unfamiliar ways. Youth
have close relationships with their clothing, as the various types of materials that adorn
their persons are seen, touched and manipulated daily. However, youth don’t associate
fabric materials or threads as something conductive. Seeing the qualities of these soft
materials in unexpected ways enables youth to forge new connections; both because they
have previous familiarity with clothing, but also they haven’t thought about the qualities
of conductive materials, more broadly, as a way of sorting the world.

Our investigation into e-textile creation as a potential vehicle for learning circuits
acknowledges that the tools we use and make available play a formidable role in shaping our
conceptual understandings, and, moreover, that new tools can bring clarity to concepts that are
often challenging. As shown here, e-textile projects can successfully engage youth in core
science content; subject matter that has been difficult in prior approaches to make conceptual
sense to youth. The workshop youths’ aforementioned gains as well as their ability to explain
their understandings to peers and parents demonstrate that e-textiles can offer an alternative and
efficacious introduction to electronics.
Workshops such as the one described here demonstrate that classroom teachers can leverage
e-textiles for efficacious science content learning. Further research into how to best translate
these types of informal workshop environments into classroom pedagogy is still required.
Workshop models that occur within the school day are one potential answer (see Buechley, et al.,
2013 for more on this). Furthermore, while this study focused on simple working circuits and
five core circuitry concepts, future research studies could include adding directional flow to the
current model, as well as more advanced constructions to complex circuitry.

Acknowledgments

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No.
0855886 awarded to Kylie A. Peppler. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

Asoko, H. (1996). Developing scientific concepts in the primary classroom: Teaching about
electric circuits. G. Welford, J. Osborne, & P. Scott (Eds.), Research in science education in
 Europe (pp. 36-49). London, Falmer Press.
Buechley, L. (2010). Questioning invisibility. Computer, (43)4: 84-86.
Buechley, L., Peppler, K., Eisenberg, M., & Kafai, Y. (Eds.), Textile messages: Dispatches from
the world of e-textiles and education. New York: Peter Lang.
Evans, J. (1978). Teaching electricity with batteries and bulbs. The Physics Teacher, 16(1): 15-
22.
Kafai, Y. & Peppler, K. (in press). Rethinking transparency in critical making with e-textiles. In
M. Boler & M. Ratto (Eds.), DIY Citizenship. Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Osborne, R. (1981). Children’s ideas about electric current. New Zealand Science Teacher, 29:
12-19.
Osborne, R. (1983). Modifying children’s ideas about electric current. Research in Science and
Technological Education, 1(1): 73-82.
Osborne, J., Black, P., Smith, M. & Meadows, J. (1991). Primary SPACE Project research
report: Electricity. Liverpool University Press, Liverpool, England.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Peppler, K. & Glosson, D. (2012). Stitching Circuits: Learning About Circuitry Through E-
Textile Materials. Journal of Science and Educational Technology. November 17. Retrieved
8 December, 2012, from: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10956-012-9428-2
Shepardson, D.P. & Moje, E.B. (1994). The nature of fourth graders’ understandings of electric
circuits, Science Education, 78(5): 489-514.
Shipstone, D. (1984). A study of children’s understanding of electricity in simple D.C. circuits.
European Journal of Science Education, 6: 59-87.
Tiberghien, A & Delacote, G. (1976). Manipulations representations de circuits electrique
sample chex les enfants de 7 a 12 ans, Review Francaise de Pedagogie, 34: 32-44.